Bombay High Court
ANIL NAINMAL SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court permitted the petitioner to confront the photographs and text messages in the pending proceedings and dismissed the request to recall the service address order.
Summary
The petitioner, Vaishali Anil Tikam, filed a criminal revision seeking to modify an order that barred her from circulating photographs and text messages concerning the respondent. She argued that she should be allowed to confront this material in the pending judicial proceedings between them. The court held that she may confront the photographs and messages solely within those proceedings but may not circulate them more broadly. In a related interim application, the petitioner, Neha Anil Shah, sought recall of an order concerning the service address, contending she resided at the original address. The court accepted her claim of residence at the earlier address and disposed of the interim application. Consequently, the revision application was allowed and both applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner may be permitted to confront photographs and text messages in the pending judicial proceedings without broader circulation.
- Whether the order dated 17/01/2026 regarding service of notice should be recalled on the ground of the petitioner's residence address.
Subjects
- criminal revision
- interim application
- evidence confrontation
- photographs
- text messages
- service of notice
- address dispute
- court order
Judgment
16-REVN-34-2020 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2020
VAISHALI
ANIL Anil Nainmal Shah ...Applicant/s
TIKAM
VERSUS
Digitally signed The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondent/s
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.09.09 WITH
11:22:44 +0530
CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2509 OF 2026
IN
REVN/34/2020
Neha Anil Shah ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Anil Nainmal Shah ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Vivek Kantawala a/w. Jash B. Vyas a/w. Mr. Manav Kantawala a/w.
Mr. Harsha Masand i/by M/s. Vivek Kantawala and Co.. Advocates for
Applicant and Respondent No.1 in IA Org. Applicant in CRA.
Mr. Rushabh Vidyarthi a/w. Mr. Pashin Ichhaporva, Advocates for Original
Respondent No.2 in Revision Application and Applicant in IA.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
Criminal Revision Application No.34 of 2020.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned counsel for
Respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the challenge in
Page 1 of 3
16-REVN-34-2020 (CR).doc
Tikam
this application is the clause (D) of the impugned order directing that
Respondent No.1 shall not circulate photographs and text messages
concerning appellant and her friend in any manner. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Applicant be permitted to confront the
photographs and text messages to the Respondent in judicial proceedings
between Applicant and Respondent No.1 and after confronting the
proceedings, it may place on record and Application be disposed of.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that appropriate
order be passed.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. As Applicant wishes to
confront photographs and text messages to the Respondent No.1 in judicial
proceedings pending between them only, considering this fact, the
Applicant is permitted to confront the photographs and text messages
concerning the Respondent and her friend in judicial proceedings pending
between them only and not to circulate other and put it on record in the
said judicial proceedings.
6. Criminal Revision Application is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
***
Page 2 of 3
16-REVN-34-2020 (CR).doc
Tikam
Interim Application No.2509 of 2026.
1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant seeks recall the order
dated 17/01/2026 passed by this Court [Coram: Manjusha Deshpande, J.].
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that learned
counsel for Applicant in Revision Application No. 34 of 2026, Respondent
herein made submissions before this Court on 17/01/2026 that Applicant-
wife i.e. Respondent No.2 in the said application was not residing on the
given address mentioned in the cause title. But in fact, she is residing on
the same address as she is co-owner.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent-husband
that the Applicant was served on the new address, which was amended as
per the order of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the order
passed by this Court is legal and valid and no need to recall the order and
requested to reject the application.
4. I have heard both learned counsel. As Applicant is stating that
she is residing on the earlier address, her contention is accepted.
5. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…